So ironically, he proved you right and himself wrong. I won't even go into the legality because I get shit, but this seems an invasion of privacy to me as well.

This deserves special attention:

Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year.

Look among the governor's camp-followers and legislative pals for people with ties to the testing industry.

Republican "fiscal responsibility" in action.

#3 - it's more like 30 days for pot, which is, of course, by far the most commonly used "illegal" drug.

I'd love to see some brave politician call for mandatory drug tests for millionaires. You fail the test, you get no tax breaks this year, period. But of course rich people don't do drugs....

Blaming the victim is at the conservative's core belief. They mistakenly believe in a "just world."

It's sad really. It's a worldview that has been proven to be false, but conservatives cling to it out of ignorance and fear.

@4:

I'd go a step further and call for mandatory drug testing for ALL state & federal employees, INCLUDING all elected officials. Hell, if the government can compel private companies to drug test their own employees (which, by law, any company that wants to secure a federal contract HAS to do), then citizens should insist the people they elect prove they're drug-free as well.

And no going to their private doc or whatever to take the test; make them stand in line with all the "welfare druggies" they so obviously revile.

@4, nah, rich folks do more coke than pot. That stuff's out of your system in a day or two. Besides, rich folks can afford to pay a poor person to piss in a jar for them.

But I thought addiction was a disease. So why isn't this a violation of the Americans with disabillities act?

Urgutha, the only "just world" conservatives believe in is the one where they have all the money. They really don't give a flying fuck about the unwashed masses.

Hell, if the government can compel private companies to drug test their own employees (which, by law, any company that wants to secure a federal contract HAS to do), then citizens should insist the people they elect prove they're drug-free as well.

Comte/6 you are, as usual, a treasure

I actually agree with you 100% on this one Goldy. It's an overreach of government, a perversion of conservative principles, and attacks the dignity of citizens over personal property that should be legal in the first place.

@4 , I know more than a few people that have beat an unplanned drug test by drinking that crap they sell at head shops. I think you need 48 hours for it to work.

Reading this on Reddit, it turns out they tried this same program back in 1999-2001.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/05/22…

Its failed then, its failing now.

i think he might not care about the results, as long as the testing is what matters:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/money/gov-r…

@5: You'll love this.

It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor.

You are misreading the data, Goldy. If 2% fail a drug test, that does not mean that only 2% use drugs. Determining the actual number of people that use drugs is harder. Some drugs will be out of your system in hours, and unless you are a heavy smoker of weed, it will be out of your system in less than a week. The periodicity and randomness of the drug tests determine the amount of people that actually use drugs. If there is no randomness then only idiots will get caught. If the periodicity is long, then you will mostly catch those who are the heavy users.

@5 - You son of a bitch. I just lost over half an hour reading Wikipedia. I now know about Jerusalem syndrome and may not get any work done at all today.

@3, @16, EXACTLY!

The Stranger fails at logic.

2% of welfare applications testing positive for drugs does not mean that 2% of all eligible for welfare are on drugs. No one in their right mind is going to front the money for their own drug test when they know they're going to test positive.

@2 "Over 12 months, the money saved on all rejected applicants would add up to $40,800 to $60,000 for a program that state analysts have predicted will cost $178 million this fiscal year."

Yes, that's just on the rejected applicants. What about the money that the state is saving on people who aren't applying for welfare because they know they will be rejected?

@18, people who aren't applying aren't just those who think they will be rejected, of course. They may need the $30 price of the test to buy a few gallons of gas, an asthma prescription, or a little food this week.

And what ABOUT the money the state is "saving"? They're currently seeing an application rate of up to 18,000 per year. If EVERY ONE of those were rubber-stamped into the system, their benefits would cost the state less than $30 million per year (average benefit of $134/recipient/month from the article).

In other words, about one-sixth of what the state is pissing away THIS YEAR on the test requirement.

@ 6: Why atop there? To be morally consistent we could rest all forms of Welfare recipients: grants, tax credits, tax deductions, Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security are all a form of welfare. My parents get more from their mortgage interest deduction than those Floridians could dream to get on TANF. My neighbors deduct even more on their beach house, and it's their second home! Oh and anyone who uses a government service, like a road, needs to be tested as well.

Would you trolls pay attention? If only 2% fail the drug tests, IT WAS A STUPID IDEA TO DRUG TEST IN THE FIRST PLACE. The assholes who hoped to prove that the poor are not only stinky, but are stinky, addicted, stupid pieces of shit failed in their experiment. And nobody is surprised, because hello? If you know you're gonna have a drug test, you stop using for a couple days. Everyone, from every social class, uses drugs, and it's rare that people will just get caught on a large scale this easily.

forcing them to pay for their own drug test

You're missing a key part: whom it is that they're paying for the drug tests. As in, Rick Scott's own private company that offers drug testing services.

@23 - Right. Scott doesn't care how what percentage test positive, just what percentage pays.

Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that what we call "welfare" is really the highly restrictive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, aimed at providing assistance to impoverished families so that their children can be cared for in their own homes.

This makes no fucking sense. Are drug addicts and their children incapable of being needy?

Despite the stereotypes, poor people are less likely to use illegal drugs, whether they're receiving welfare or not. Perhaps that's because 1. they have no money; and 2. they face much harsher punishments for drug use than entitled, spoiled rich people.

@ 18 (rob!) "And what ABOUT the money the state is "saving"? They're currently seeing an application rate of up to 18,000 per year. If EVERY ONE of those were rubber-stamped into the system, their benefits would cost the state less than $30 million per year (average benefit of $134/recipient/month from the article)."

Your math is incorrect.

To quote reddit: "If you spend 1140$ to get a return of 240$/month that's an EXCELLENT investment by ANY measure. The 1140$ is a ONE time COST. The 240$/month savings is recurring. The return is 252% per year."

@22 (zobot) "Would you trolls pay attention? If only 2% fail the drug tests, IT WAS A STUPID IDEA TO DRUG TEST IN THE FIRST PLACE. The assholes who hoped to prove that the poor are not only stinky, but are stinky, addicted, stupid pieces of shit failed in their experiment."

As I noted above, this is not true. The idea was not to prove that poor people use drugs, it was to stop giving welfare benefits to people who are using drugs. People who are using drugs will not apply for benefits because they know they will get denied.

@23 (Warren Terra) "You're missing a key part: whom it is that they're paying for the drug tests. As in, Rick Scott's own private company that offers drug testing services. "

Sure, it's shady. But not all of the testing services are going there. It's simply one of the numerous companies listed on the testing website. It's not like they have some exclusive contract with the state.

@26 (kesimeshi) "Despite the stereotypes, poor people are less likely to use illegal drugs, whether they're receiving welfare or not. Perhaps that's because 1. they have no money; and 2. they face much harsher punishments for drug use than entitled, spoiled rich people. "

{citation needed}

How about drug testing for elected officials, CEO's, and other big-time decision makers? Like Dave Chappelle says, janitors and shit are the people that SHOULD be on drugs.

@27
Your reading comprehension is incorrect.

$1140 (see how the dollar sign goes in front? I know it is confusing being that it's said, 'one-thousand one hundred forty dollars.') per month for drug testing individuals. You think passing a drug test once gives you a free pass the rest of the time you're in the system?.

And I think you're paraphrasing and not quoting reddit.

"But the low test fail-rate undercuts another of his arguments: that people on welfare are more likely to use drugs." - cite this

Also from the same article:
"Cost of the tests averages about $30. Assuming that 1,000 to 1,500 applicants take the test every month, the state will owe about $28,800-$43,200 monthly in reimbursements to those who test drug-free.

That compares with roughly $32,200-$48,200 the state may save on one month's worth of rejected applicants."

How about a warm glass of SHUT THE FUCK UP?!

@27, no, my math is just fine (18,000 applicants approved x $134/mo x 12 months=$28,944,000 for one year).

Your reasoning is flawed. You can't crow about a "252% per year" return for freezing out one drug-addled poor person and ignore all the other eleven-hundred-and-forty-dollarses or whatever {citation needed} spent on the 98% of applicants who pass the test, and end up costing what you claim is $240 a month {citation needed}--the average benefit cited in Goldy's link is $134/mo, so your return is inflated anyway.

Look, let me be even more obvious. Let's ASSUME that fully 50% of all people who would LIKE to be on TANF are drug-addled, smelly bums; know it; and therefore don't even bother to apply. And let's assume that I can wave a magic wand and make the drug-testing rule disappear, so that absolutely everybody who previously felt excluded comes shoving their way in to sign up. Let's assume they all get approved. That's 36,000 new people getting benefits this year, totalling less than $60 million--still a third of what Florida is spending this year to keep out a handful of people.

Yes, I know that adding more people will likely cause higher expenses beyond just this year. A lot of people will drop off too, if they find jobs or move or die or something.

Yes, I know that the state's expenses may fall somewhat after the first start-up year. Do you really think a program that cost $178 million to start and run for one year, that doesn't require a lot of tangible assets, is going to drop by even half?

Is it not obvious that this is wasteful and designed to line the pockets of the governor, his family, and his cronies?

By the way, Republican bureaucracies are just as inefficient (if not more so) as Democratic ones. I don't know where you're getting the figure of $1,140 {citation needed}, implied to be the "investment" needed to keep one drug-addled poor person off basic support, but it's probably about right. So setting up and administering a bureacracy to demand, vet, and [frequently] reimburse a $30 drug test costs $1,140. And this is OK with you?

Also by the way, in May Florida had about 113,340 recipients in the whole TANF program, whose benefits total about $182 million a year. So Florida is spending nearly that much AGAIN, this year, to keep out maybe a handful of people.

The bigger issue is the fact that he only wants the poor to take these tests before receiving government money. He does NOT require any tests for others receiving government assistance (farm subsidies, scholarships, business grants, etc.). This is an outright (and way too obvious) war on the poor.

this article is making conclusions based on poor statistics

"But at least 1,000 welfare applicants took the drug tests through mid-August, according to the department, which expects at least 1,500 applicants to take the tests monthly."

so, out of the ~1000 *applicants* that took the drug test since the law went into effect 1 month ago, 2% were positive.

how many people in FL are currently receiving welfare?

this does not measure people currently getting welfare.

also, 1000 is too small a sample size. I can assure you that rate is not statistically significant.

it's also not measuring the number of potential applicants who did not apply because they know they would have failed the drug test. Over time, there will also be no way to measure the preventative effect of the law (where applicants stop taking drugs so they can get welfare).

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with the law. I'm stating that this article is severely misrepresenting data.

@6 - Yes! Test all politicians holding office!

Englewood, FL

maxi mounds the rotten meat

the score group also

elliot james
james@scoregroup.com